1. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 1 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response The Right Information at the Right Fingertips at the Right Time

2. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 2 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response Part One What Does Semantic Interoperability Really Mean?

3. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 3 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response First, Foremost, Interoperability Means Teamwork

4. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 4 Semantic Interoperability (SI) First Mentioned on Web in 2000 Apparently Quick Study: u SI Conference in Houston This Date u Ontolog Forum on SWSF / FLOWS, WSDL-S, OWL-S This Date Progression of Standards: SGML>XML/RDF>RDF/OWL>? SICoP, XMLCoP Keeping Pace

5. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 5 Semantic Interoperability Some Helpful, Simplified Similes

6. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 6 Semantics Symplified Semantics Studies MEANINGS u Seeks Linguistic Clarity & Specificity wrt LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION u Seeks no confusion of map & territory Semiotics Studies SIGNS, SIGNALS & SYMBOLS u Identifies Components of Communication u Identifies Roles of Components Interoperability Needs Semantic Roadmaps, Guides, Dictionaries, etc. for Translating Similar but Disparate Vocabularies

7. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 7 Interoperability Interoperability Much Newer Term Coined Specifically for Software u Popularizaton of XML Largely Grew out of Improvement over Document Type Definitions (DTDs) to Salvage Legacy Databases u XML Schema Much More Useful, so Mistakenly Applied to Problems Not Targeted by XML

8. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 8 Semantic Interoperability in “Semantic Web” Foundation Needs Web Ontology Language (OWL), Written in RDF) u Many Advantages, Pitfalls u Not Ontology with Capital “O” yet Understanding Relationship of Terms to Domain-Specific Context Required u EDI For Instance u UBL, ebXML, etc Setting Standards for Business Context

9. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 9 Semantic Interoperability Standards Required “Semantic Web” Requires Standards TopicMaps an Early Attempt, Useful, but Limited Structure Based on Associations, more than Relationships XML Domain-Specific Vocabulary Definitions Allow Document by Document Translations of Terms & Datatypes-Tedious and Repetitious though Templates Possible XML-based Standards Allows Document & Application Domain Vocabularies to be made Interoperable, but… u Closely Related, Previously Defined Vocabularies Problematic u Inadvertent Duplicative Efforts can Conflict

10. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 10 XML-Based Standards Make Good Start OASIS Standards in Divergent Fields demonstrate promise u Universal Business Language (UBL), u Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and u Web Services for Remote Portlets (WSRP) Lag Time Difficult When Needs Press Adoption is Extra Work for Volunteers Momentum Slowly Building

11. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 11 First Key to Semantic Interoperability: RDF Resource Description Language (RDF) u Defines Relationships of Entities Using “Triples” u Triples are “Statements” Consisting of: n Subject: (Resource) Defined by Universal Resource Identifier (URI) n Object: (Property) a Named Resource that can have its own properties n Predicate: (Value/Relationship) u Statements like “x is a member of y” Allow Reasoning, or Inference Engines to Operate over Populations of Documents, over Resources and over Business Process such as Policy & Security

12. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 12 Second Key to Semantic Interoperability: OWL Web Ontology Language (OWL) u Allows Definition of Classification Systems with Inheritance of Properties u Comes in Three SubLanguages (so far) n OWL Lite Allows a Classification Hierarchy and Simple Constraints—Most Widely Used n OWL DL (Description Logic) Allows Maximum Expressiveness with Computational Completeness n OWL Full Allow Complete Expressiveness and Syntactic Freedom but no Computational Guarantees u Allows Much More Extensive Reasoning

13. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 13 Semantic Interoperability Allows Improved Search, Rules & Security Semantically Based Registries Can Allow More Focused Lookup for Compatible Web Services Partners Semantically-Capable Partners Can Align & Automate Mutual Business Processes over Larger Range Semantically-Based Security Rules Can Allow More Sharing with Security

14. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 14 Need for Standards Still Strong Semantic Interoperability Needs the XML Vocabulary Standard Work to Continue Companies, Agencies Need to be Shown that this work is in Their Interest u Employee Time Justified u Resources Justifed u Benefits need to be measured in terms of Time Saved as well as Costs Saved into Future

15. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 15 How are we Showing Semantic Interoperability? Within CAP 1.0, (and 1.1)the Sub-element of the Element is a String (Textual), Intended to Supply an “Event Type” which we Use as a Semantic Key u We Use CAP 1.0, (CAP 1.1 was not yet an OASIS Standard When this Pilot Started) u We Use a Simulated Event Type ontology (Called an ontology Because it is written in OWL/RDF) Within The Emergency Data Exchange Language Distribution Element (EDXL_DE) the Element Requires a Managed List Associated with the Keyword and the List--a Method made for Semantic Interoperability u EDXL_DE is not yet an OASIS Standard but Our Work Reflects its Functionality as a Routing Standard for Emergency Messages

16. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 16 SI Architecture Not Yet Defined Enterprise Architecture Foundation u Fits Federal Enterprise Architecture u Supports DRM Mulitple Service-Oriented Architecture Components u Web Services Componentization u Registries Make Mix-&-Match Possible N-Tier Architecture Allows Flexibility u Databases, DBMSs, WebServers, Clients Separated, Supported

17. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 17 What Does a Semantic Interoperability Architecture Look Like? This Pilot is a Practical Example u Emergency Management Centric u Participants Represent Spectrum Following Slide Shows Most of the Components u Portal and Secondary Support Services To Come u Collection of Participants Would Align Themselves through Semantically Ordered Registries or Out of Band Web Services Bindings u Shows Messaging Flows Perspective

18. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 18

19. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 19 Enterprise Architecture

20. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 20 Service-Oriented Architecture

21. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 21 Registries Add Semantic Discovery of Services & Resources

22. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 22 Our Pilot of a Semantic Interoperability Architecture

23. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 23 Semantic Interoperability Summary Teamwork Through Semantically Ordered Web Services Registries Allow Related Companies/Entities to Locate Each Other Registries Allow Resources to be Located and Bound through Web Services Registries Add Layer of Role-Based Security Third Party Portals and Communities, such as Geospatial and Healthcare Can Aid Preparedness through Semantically Ordered, PreRegistered Web Services

24. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 24 Questions?

25. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 25 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response Part Two Train Derailment Example Based on January 6, 2005 Incident in Graniteville, South Carolina

26. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 26 Semantic Keys to Improving Rapid First Response Train Derailment Example: u 6 January 2005, 3:50 A.M. Graniteville, SC u Chlorine Tank Car Toxic Release Matching ResponseType with EventType Using Open Public Standards Getting the Right Information to the Right People at the Right Time

27. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 27 Original Timeline v. New Timeline Original Timeline: 17 Days Incident Starts 2:00 A.M. 6 January 2005 All Clear 21 January 2005 New Timeline: 12 Days Incident Starts 2:00 A.M. 6 January 2006 All Clear 17 January 2006

28. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 28 Original Timeline Problems Incident Starts 2:00 A.M. 6 January 2005 u No Early Public Warning Alert u First EPA Situation Report 10:00 A.M. n 8 Hour Response Quick, Given Circumstances n Injuries, Deaths Acknowledged, Chlorine Hazmat Identified u Second EPA Situation Report 4:00 P.M. n EPA Region 4 Operations Support Command (OSC) n Operations Underway

29. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 29 Original Timeline Problems u Third EPA Situation Report 7 January 2005 n EPA Region 4 OSC on Scene - Air Monitoring n Extent Hazmat Release Determined 76% of 131 Tons u Fourth EPA Situation Report 7 January 2005 - Full Operations Begin Logistical Support Operations: Non- NIMS Organizational Impedance All Clear 17 January 2005

30. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 30 New Timeline Improvements Incident Starts 2:00 A.M. 6 January 2005 u CAP Message with EDXL Header Optimizes Immediate Public Warning Alert: 2:15 A.M. n Remote Sensors from Tank Cars Trigger Alerts, Trigger Train-Mounted Sirens/PA Systems u First EPA Situation Report 4:00 A.M. n Less Than Two-Hour Severe Emergency Response Triggered by Fatal-Level Hazmat Release

31. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 31 New Timeline Improvements u Second EPA Situation Report 9:00 A.M. n Semantically Triggered Response Allows Full Operations to Start within 8 Hours Versus Next Day n Hazmat Automatically Identified, Severity Semantics Push First Responses and Eliminate Jurisdictional Duplication of ICS Logistical Support Operations: NIMS Plus Semantics Reduces or Eliminates Organizational Impedance All Clear 12 January 2006

32. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 32

33. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 33 Sample with Screen Shot

34. 20 October 2005 Semantic Interoperability at Work: Improving Rapid First Response 34 Sample Reusing Another Slide